Posted by codetheweb 3 days ago
Also the fact that it doesn't detect locking the same mutex twice makes no sense: a static order obviously detects that and when locking multiple mutexes at the same level all you need to do is check for equal consecutive addresses after sorting, which is trivial.
Overall it seems like the authors are weirdly both quite competent and very incompetent. This is typical of LLMs, but it doesn't seem ZlLM-made.
While not obviously problematic, that seems weird enough you would need to validate that it is explicitly safe.
But the example seems backwards to me: unless every callsite that locks any item always locks the big global lock first (probably not true, because if you serialize all item access on a global lock then a per-item lock serves no purpose...), aren't you begging for priority inversions by acquiring the big global lock before you acquire the item lock?
My only gripe is missing the obvious opportunity for Ferengi memes ("rules of acquisition") :D :D
There’s no priority inversion possible because locks can only ever be held in decreasing orders of priority - you can’t acquire a low priority lock and then a high priority lock since your remaining MutexKey won’t have the right level.
Mutex::new(AppConfig::default());
> There’s no priority inversion possible because locks can only ever be held in decreasing orders of priority
T1 T2
-- --
small_lock();
big_lock();
small_lock(); <--- Spins waiting for T1
If small_lock is never ever acquired without acquiring big_lock first, small_lock serves no purpose and should be deleted from the program.
Mutex::new(AppConfig::default()) might very well be a small, leaf mutex.
In the DB world, we often trade complex locking for deterministic ordering or latch-free structures, but translating those to general-purpose app code (like what this Rust crate tries to do) is where the friction happens. It’s great to see more 'DB-style' rigour (like total ordering for locks) making its way into library design.
>This is a deliberate design decision. lock_tree uses a DAG, which lets you declare that branches A and B are independent — neither needs to come before the other. Sounds great, but it has a subtle problem: if thread 1 acquires A then B, and thread 2 acquires B then A, and both orderings are valid in the DAG, you have a deadlock that the compiler happily approved.
Would it be possible to build one at compile time? Static levels seem like they won't let you share code without level-collaboration, so that might be kinda important for larger-scale use.
I don't know enough about Rust's type system to know if that's possible though. Feels like it's pushing into "maybe" territory, like maybe not with just linear types but what about proc macros?
I can definitely see why it's easier to build this way though, and for some contexts that limitation seems entirely fine. Neat library, and nice post :)
One thing I didn't see in the post or the repo: does this work with async code?
I couldn't find the "search" button on Codeberg, and tests/integration.rs didn't have any async.
For embedded, I have had my eye on https://github.com/embassy-rs/embassy (which has an async runtime for embedded) and would love a nice locking crate to go with it.
First, lock acquisition seems to be a blocking method. And I don't see a `try_lock` method, so the naive pattern of spinning on `try_lock` and yielding on failure won't work. It'll still work in an async function, you'll just block the executor if the lock is contested and be sad.
Second, the key and guard types are not Send, otherwise it would be possible to send a key of a lower level to a thread that has already acquired a lock of a higher level, allowing deadlocks. (Or to pass a mutex guard of a higher level to a thread that has a key of a lower level.)
Therefore, holding a lock or a key across an await point makes your Future not Send.
Technically, this is fine. Nothing about Rust async in general requires that your Futures are Send. But in practice, most of the popular async runtimes require this. So if you want to use this with Tokio, for example, then you have to design your system to not hold locks or keys across await points.
This first restriction seems like it could be improved with the addition of an `AsyncLockable` trait. But the second restriction seems to me to be fundamental to the design.
Also to note, regarding “future not send,” that, in tokio codebases where the general expectation is that futures will be Send, enabling the clippy lint “future_not_send” is extremely helpful in avoiding these kinds of issues and also in keeping the error localized to the offending function, rather than it being miles away somewhere it happens to be getting indirectly spawned or whatever: https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/stable/index.html?se...
One thing that I think do affect things, is that language design discussions tend to be concentrated into their own communities based on the programming language itself, rather than one "programming language discussions" place where everyone can easier cross-pollinate ideas across languages. Luckily, there are some individuals who move between communities without effort, which does lead to a bit of ideas making it across, but it feels like we're missing out on so much evolution and ideas from various languages across the ecosystem.
Oh, many of these travelers spend a lot of effort!
Supercomputing is another domain that has deep insights into scalable systems that is famously so insular that ideas rarely cross over into mainstream scalable systems. My detour through supercomputing probably added as much to my database design knowledge as anything I actually did in databases.
http://joeduffyblog.com/2010/01/03/a-brief-retrospective-on-...
> Models can be pulled along other axes, however, such as whether memory locations must be tagged in order to be used in a transaction or not, etc. Haskell requires this tagging (via TVars) so that side-effects are evident in the type system as with any other kind of monad. We quickly settled on unbounded transactions.
Snip
> In hindsight, this was a critical decision that had far-reaching implications. And to be honest, I now frequently doubt that it was the right call. We had our hearts in the right places, and the entire industry was trekking down the same path at the same time (with the notable exception of Haskell)
So basically not that TM isn’t workable, but unbounded TM is likely a fool’s errand but Haskell’s is bounded TM that requires explicit annotation of memory that will participate in atomicity.
Is easy, or hard?
Demand a new paradigm at large, or is only a inconvenience in the few places is used?
Because if the answer is "turns the language into Haskell" then is a big NOPE!
I dunno. I appreciate the opposition to "just be careful". But this feels to me like it's inducing bad design patterns. So it feels like it's wandering down the wrong path.